ADESH GUPTA,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), DEHRADUN

The only grounds raised

in this appeal reads as under: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeals erred in not deleting the penalty for a sum of Rs.80,000/-.”

Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no notice for hearing was served upon the assessee and that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal without providing an opportunity of being heard.

In his rival submissions, the ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that the assessee did not comply the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A), so there was no alternative except to decide the appeal ex-parte.

I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) simply mentioned in para 4 of the impugned order that the notices were issued to the assessee for fixing the date of hearing. However, it is not brought on record that any of the notice of hearing was served upon the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “audi alteram partem”. I, therefore, by keeping in view the principles of natural justice, deem it appropriate to set aside this issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 08/06/2018)